140
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
BOARD OF APPEALS
RUTHERFORD HALL
VILLAGE HALL
SCARSDALE, NY
June 11, 2008
A regular meeting of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Scarsdale was held in the
Rutherford Hall in the Village Hall on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 8:00 p.m.
Those members present were Seth Ross, Chair, William Kay, Harold Porosoff and
Rosanne Underweiser. Also present were Counsel Richard Gardella, Building
Inspector/Village Engineer Nunzio Pietrosanti, Village Planner Elizabeth Marrinan and
Secretary to the Planner, Janet Annacone. Allan Shapiro was absent.
*****
The Chair noted that the application of Ilyse and Lyndon Tretter for a Special Use
Permit to construct a swimming pool at 15A Richbell Road, identified on the Village tax map
as Sec. 14, Blk. 5, Lot 25B, has been withdrawn.
*****
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the April 9, 2008, and May 14,
2008, meetings were approved as amended.
*****
The Chair said please allow me to take a few moments of your time to explain the
Board's procedures. We hear each application in the order in which it is noticed -- we hear
first from the applicant and then from any persons speaking in favor of or in opposition to the
application.
After all of the evening's hearings, the Board will deliberate. Deliberations are open
to the public. You are free to leave at the conclusion of your hearing or to stay for the
deliberations. Some applicants choose to leave once their hearings have been concluded,
while others choose to remain here. Should you decide to leave before the Board's
deliberations you may obtain the Board's decision by calling Janet Annacone at Village Hall
tomorrow. Ms. Annacone can be reached at 722-1131. Whether you stay or go has no bearing
on the Board's deliberations or decision.
At the conclusion of deliberations on each application, the Board attempts to reach a
consensus. For an application to be granted, at least 3 of the Board's five members must vote
in favor of that application. The Board's decision is memorialized in a written resolution. The
resolutions are filed at Village Hall and are available to the public.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
141
This evening we have only four members of the Board in attendance. An application
still requires three positive votes to pass, however. If you wish, therefore, to postpone your
hearing until the next meeting of the Board, you may do so.
*****
The reading of the following legal notice was waived by unanimous vote of the Board.
LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLIC HEARING
BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Board of Appeals of
the Village of Scarsdale in Rutherford Hall in Village Hall on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at
8:00 p.m. at which time and place the Board of Appeals will consider the following:
1. The application of Saba and Suhail Shaikh for a variance from Chapter 310-70 of the
Village Code to legalize a parking area in the front yard at 70 Griffen Avenue, identified on
the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lot 22.
2. The application of Deborah and Yoram Cohen for a variance from Chapter 310-22 of the
Village Code in order to construct an addition that would exceed the maximum permitted
building coverage at 7 Dolma Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot
13B.
3. The application of Merle and Stephen Denelsky for a variance from Chapter 310-23 of the
Village Code in order to pave a gravel driveway which would exceed the maximum permitted
lot coverage on this wetlands controlled lot at 131 Cushman Road, identified on the Village
tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lot 10.
4. The application of Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd. to appeal the determination of the Building
Inspector and for an interpretation of the Zoning Code regarding Chapters 310-14 and 310-20
through 23 of the Village Code regarding the calculation of lot area coverage for the
construction of a new house on a new lot adjacent to 60 Crane Road, to be shown on the
Village tax map as Sec. 3, Blk. 1, Lot 2C.
5. The application of Angela and Yong Kim for variances from Chapters 310-22 and 310-67
of the Village Code to construct an addition that would exceed maximum permitted lot
coverage at 30 Stonewall Lane, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk. 1, Lot 35.
6. The application of Marjorie and Phillip Jacobs for a Special Use Permit to construct a
swimming pool at 31 Griffen Avenue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1,
Lot 5B.
7. The application of Elizabeth and Jay Hausman for a Special Use Permit to install a pool
on the deck at 7 Thornwood Place, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk. 1, Lot
194.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
142
8. The application of Susan and Jeffrey Goldenberg for a variance from Chapter 310-47C to
legalize a pool that, as constructed, intrudes on the required setback for swimming pools at 12
Sherbrooke Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 10.
Copies of the above applications are on file in the Office of the Building Department and may
be viewed by interested parties at any time during usual business hours. By Order of the
Board of Appeals, Scarsdale, New York, dated May 27, 2008.
Elizabeth Marrinan, AICP, Village Planner.
******
CASE #20 OF 2008
1. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Saba and Suhail Shaikh for a
variance from Chapter 310-70 of the Village Code to legalize a parking area in the front yard
at 70 Griffen Avenue, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lot 22.
The Chair said the first application to be heard is that of Saba and Suhail Shaikh and
asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Suhail Shaikh, applicant, and Asim Mian, architect, were present.
Mr. Gardella recused himself.
Mr. Shaikh said they revised the plan to decrease the size of the turnaround. They
increased the front yard setback to the turnaround area to 27.9 feet from 19.5 feet. The
landscape plan plans shows boxwood or other plants for screening.
Mr. Kay asked if they are going to reduce the linear distance from the road side or
house side. Mr. Shaikh said from the house side. Mr. Kay said they reduced it by 25 sq. ft.
He asked how what it was before? Mr. Mian said it was 55.79 sq. ft.
The Chair said no variance is being requested for surface coverage.
Mr. Kay asked how much space, linear feet, is needed for the turn around. Mr.
Shaikh said a three point turn is not easy to make in that location. They have almost had
accidents backing out onto the busy street with trucks and other vehicular traffic. He said he
does not know the specific amount of linear feet. Mr. Kay asked if the purpose of the area is
for a turn around, or for parking. He also asked if they would be replacing the curbstone.
Mr. Shaikh said the cobblestones will be moved.
Mr. Pietrosanti asked if they had any intention to screen the driveway area. Mr. Mian
said they propose to screen with three feet high boxwoods. Mr. Pietrosanti said the depth
looks large enough to park two cars perpendicularly. He asked if there would be any
reduction in this 19 to 20 foot area. Mr. Shaikh said because of the retaining wall on the left
hand side, they need that space for an SUV or larger truck. Mr. Pietrosanti said the driveway
is 12 feet wide. Mr. Shaikh said yes.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
143
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #22 OF 2008
2. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Deborah and Yoram Cohen for
a variance from Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code in order to construct an addition that
would exceed the maximum permitted building coverage at 7 Dolma Road, identified on the
Village tax map as Sec. 18, Blk. 1, Lot 13B.
The Chair said the second application to be heard is that of Deborah and Yoram
Cohen and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify
themselves.
Deborah and Yoram Cohen, applicants, and S. Edward Parker, architect, were present.
Mr. Parker said they are applying for a variance for building coverage for a third bay
in the garage. The existing house has a wide footprint with the master suite on the first floor.
The property as a whole will still be under the allowable lot coverage and FAR with this
addition. He said they submitted a list of residences on Murray Hill with three car garages
that they ascertained by driving by.
Mr. Kay asked what will happen to the generator. Mr. Parker said the existing
generator will be removed as noted. That generator was installed by the previous owner and
not permitted from the town. Mr. Kay asked if they are replacing it. Mr. Parker said they are
not at this time.
Mr. Kay asked if they would be extending the deck. Mr. Cohen said no; but they are
thinking of removing the shed. Mr. Kay said he is trying to figure out ways to reduce the
size of the requested variance.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #25 OF 2008
3. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Merle and Stephen Denelsky
for a variance from Chapter 310-23 of the Village Code in order to pave a gravel driveway
which would exceed the maximum permitted lot coverage on this wetlands controlled lot at
131 Cushman Road, identified on the Village tax map as Sec. 16, Blk. 4, Lot 10.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
144
The Chair said the third application to be heard is that of Merle and Stephen Denelsky
and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Merle Denelsky, applicant, and Anthony Minichetti, architect, were present.
Mr. Minichetti said their previous submittal was larger and requested a 48 percent
variance for lot coverage. They have reduced the size of the request by 475 sq. ft. for a
requested variance of 35 percent for coverage. They analyzed the maneuverability of the
vehicles in the rear yard in order to access the garage at the lower level of the residence.
The Chair said they reduced the coverage by removing the asphalt driveway next to
the house and replacing it with gravel. Mr. Minichetti said the naturally sloped areas of the
driveway are to be paved to avoid gravel washing down onto the road.
The Chair asked about the paved area in the rear. Mr. Minichetti said they are
retaining the originally paved area and the curve. Ms. Underweiser asked about the grade
differential in the rear. Mr. Minichetti said there is a 10 percent differential to the rear auto
court and an 11 percent to the garage level; a scissor slope.
Mr. Kay asked if there were any variances granted in the past. Mr. Minichetti said no.
Mr. Kay asked when the house was built. Mr. Minichetti said it was approved in 2005 and the
construction took one year. Mr. Kay asked if it was built to the maximum coverage. Mr.
Minichetti said no. Portions of the driveway were allowed to be paved; but with the winter
seasons, the cars and truck were getting stuck. Mrs. Denelsky said they had received approval
to pave a small portion of the driveway, now they want to pave more. Mr. Kay asked if the
305 sq. ft. terrace was approved. Mr. Minichetti said that portion is shown on the drawings.
Mr. Kay asked if the 1,282 sq ft. variance request is the original amount or the current
amount. Ms. Marrinan said originally they requested 1,757 sq. ft. or 48 percent. Mr. Kay
said they are cutting the variance request to 35 percent or 1,282 sq. ft. He said when this was
originally built they could have paved a smaller area in the back and been within the
maximum permitted lot coverage. There was a discussion at the dais. Mr. Kay asked why
they can’t do what was approved. Mrs. Denelsky said the vehicles are getting stuck. Her
husband got stuck after the driveway was plowed. His wheels were spinning in the gravel.
Also, the sanitation workers’ vehicles got stuck. Mr. Kay asked if they got stuck in the area
with the 11 percent grade above the garage. Mrs. Denelsky said yes, as the car is turning
while trying to go up.
Mr. Pietrosanti asked if they were eliminating the walk. Mr. Minichetti said they are
eliminating the paved surface between the two cobblestone aprons. Mr. Pietrosanti said there
would be no problem if they eliminated the cobblestone apron up to the property line to
eliminate gravel going into the roadway.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
145
CASE #26 OF 2008
4. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd. to
appeal the determination of the Building Inspector and for an interpretation of the Zoning
Code regarding Chapters 310-14, 310-20 through 23 of the Village Code regarding the
calculation of lot area coverage for the construction of a new house on a new lot adjacent to
60 Crane Road, to be shown on the Village tax map as Sec. 3, Blk. 1, Lot 2C.
The Chair said the fourth application to be heard is that of Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd.
and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Sarit Rozycki and Robert Cromwell, applicants, and Paul Jason, attorney, were
present.
Mr. Jason said at the last hearing he submitted a statement in support discussing the
original intent of the 1985 drafting of the Village Code regarding lot dimensions and the
quadrilateral calculation was to encourage developers and builders not to create irregular lots.
Two years later the Village passed a code to specifically include language on the total area of
the lot. He quoted the definition in Webster’s Dictionary of the word total as the total of the
whole, entire parts, etc. He said the drafters knew what they were trying to accomplish. He
said they were asked to submit a response regarding timeliness and they did that. He said
they were before the Planning Board with a preliminary sketch to show potential development
with a one family dwelling that would meet setbacks, square footage, etc. of a non flag lot.
Now the design plan of the actual marketable house has been developed. The differential in
square footage between the Planning Board sketch and the Board of Architectural Review
(BAR) submittal is de minimis at 325 sq. ft. This amount is still way below the total
impervious surface allowable.
Mr. Jason said Ms. Rozycki submitted a statement referencing several BAR
applications in which total areas were used in lot coverage calculations and not the areas
within the quadrilateral. He said he reviewed the staff notes and the sentence in the last
paragraph. “Each of the applications mentioned are on lots that pre-date the quadrilateral
requirements adopted in 1983.” If a lot is created after 1983, then they apply the quadrilateral
requirements? There is a problem with that as in 400 Mamaroneck Road and 2 Lakin Road,
subdivided in 1986 and 1988 respectively. They were not required to use quadrilateral
calculations. In 1997, 116 Fox Meadow was subdivided into two lots calculated on the total
lot area, not the quadrilateral area.
He said one requirement of their subdivision review is a Stormwater and Erosion
Control Permit (SWEC) designed for total lot coverage. But, the Planning Board may have
reviewed that Chapter but, Chapter 310-23 charts show in Number 1 the area of a lot and then
to use the chart above. There is a Catch 22 – what is the starting point?
He said the staff notes stated: “During the subdivision process, the Planning Board
often requires a construction plan which deals with site issues such as tree removal and storm
water management system design.” “This was done in this case and included a “potential
building footprint” which was reflected in the required lot coverage forms and based on the
area in the quadrilateral.”
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
146
As for timeliness, they have now changed the design by 325 sq. ft. in the same
location and within the allowable limits. They are 280 sq. ft. under and 225 sq. ft. over using
the quadrilateral.
He is asking the Board to please come forth with a clear interpretation to be applied
across the board including BAR applications with lots created both before and after 1983.
Mr. Porosoff said firstly, Mr. Jason’s client could achieve the result by getting a
variance or using the quadrilateral. Mr. Jason said unless consistency is used, different
properties under different circumstances are being treated differently. The total lot area
should be used versus as in 15A Richbell Road or other properties, rather than having to
agonize over how to proceed.
Mr. Cromwell said as a property owner, they have no expectations of being granted a
variance. He prefers the code be interpreted correctly and then they could leave further space
for development by future owners.
Mr. Porosoff said secondly, regarding timeliness, it should have been challenged
during the subdivision process. They stated they didn’t know what they were going to be
building, but owners do look ahead. Mr. Cromwell said they had no actual plan at that time.
Mr. Porosoff said they knew its meaning but chose not challenge it. Mr. Cromwell said sure,
but it was not viewed at that time as an issue worth challenging. As they are designing it now,
they are over the quadrilateral limits but submitted it to the Building Department in hopes that
they would interpret the code correctly. They didn’t, so now they came here.
Mr. Jason said the subdivision lines were drawn to preserve the historic house. There
were critical historic preservation issues with the neighbors.
Ms. Rozycki said she did the research. She reviewed five applications including 22
Greenacres Avenue and two lots on either side that were irregular lots. In four of the five
reviewed, the maximum permitted lot coverage was based upon the total lot area. In 22
Greenacres Avenue they used the maximum permitted lot coverage calculation based upon
the quadrilateral area but they referenced the total area on a separate line as found on the
website. She said Ms. Choura, in 18 Windmill Lane, is under the quadrilateral now. She said
15A Richbell Road had an application before this Board but it was pulled because “they are a
special case.”
Ms. Marrinan said this issue has come up several times. It is not fair to base
calculations on standards that were not required when the lots were created. These are legal
non-conforming lots.
Mr. Jason said the last sentence in the staff notes: “The Building Inspector has
determined that the lot area coverage should not be based on a calculation that was not
required when the lot was created.” However, Section 310-14 or 15 of the Village Code
states a building may not be erected, maintained, etc., on a lot per this code – “this code” – as
it is with the frontage and width. The situation is with old existing lots.
Ms. Marrinan said Ms. Rozycki’s examples are of improved lots, there is little on
unimproved lots. Mr. Jason said even with lots existing from way back in the past, they can
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
147
be built on per Section 310-67(c)(1) on non-conforming improved lots. He is just saying in
cases of lot coverage prior to 1983, the current requirements are not being enforced.
Mr. Kay said in all of the examples presented by Ms. Rozycki, the lots are all in the
same area without a flag part therefore are not flag lots. Ms. Rozycki said they should make
everyone use the quadrilateral ruling going forward. Mr. Cromwell said if an application
appears in the newspapers then special rules apply.
Mr. Kay said 400 Mamaroneck Avenue fits their argument with a long appendage in
which the ground area of the appendage counted. Mr. Jason said Webster’s Dictionary said it
is a whole and the entirety. Mr. Kay questioned staff regarding the quadrilateral rule as it
applies to these lots.
Mr. Kay said he had another question regarding the amount of impervious surface of a
driveway and asked what amount of that impervious surface is included. Ms. Rozycki said
the driveway outside the quadrilateral doesn’t count. Mr. Kay asked about the size of the
ground area of the driveway. Ms. Rozycki said it is at least 1,600 sq. ft. Mr. Jason said the
difference is 3,500 sq. feet. Mr. Cromwell said it is approximately 3,600 sq. ft. Ms. Rozycki
said it is 180 feet deep maximum or 200 feet by 16 feet wide. She said the house is really
smaller with the garage to be at grade and to allow plantings to Village Hall.
Mr. Kay asked if the front of the house would be facing Crane Road. Ms. Rozycki
said yes.
Mr. Gardella said there were two things said by the applicants during this discussion
than he cannot allow remaining unaddressed. First, their comment about something is fishy.
Secondly, the reference to whether an application is in a newspaper article or not. These
statements are not correct. Admittedly in 1987 there was a different interpretation leading to
this confusion. It did not result from a newspaper article or anything fishy. Sometimes land
use laws can be confusing. Not only in this community but he has worked in other
communities with confusing land use laws. He said regarding Mr. Jason’s statement to
rewrite the law; the people who wrote our code did the best job they could do. There are
proposed in-house changes to clarify this law. They all have honesty here. Nobody tells them
to take a position on anything.
Mr. Kay asked if they considered reducing the size of the building with or without the
quadrilateral. Ms. Rozycki said yes; but they didn’t want to raise the grade to get the garage
at grade because of the slope of the property toward Village Hall. This increased the garage
footprint but lessened the disturbance to the land. If not, they would have to change the grade
30 feet more. Mr. Kay said they state they have reduced it as much as possible to allow the
garage at grade which is included in the lot and building coverage.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
148
CASE #27 OF 2008
5. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Angela and Yong Kim for
variances from Chapters 310-22 and 310-67 of the Village Code to construct an addition that
would exceed maximum permitted lot coverage at 30 Stonewall Lane, identified on the
Village tax map as Sec. 21, Blk. 1, Lot 35.
The Chair said the fifth application to be heard is that of Angela and Yong Kim and
asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Angela and Yong Kim, applicants, and Silvio Luca, architect, were present.
Mr. Luca said the lot coverage is an existing non-conforming situation, by 16 percent.
They are reducing the non-conformity by 2.2 percent and are now requesting a 13.8 percent
variance. The front portion of the Kim’s property is in Mamaroneck. In his latest submittal
he showed both calculations; with and without the Mamaroneck portion of the property.
There are 20 homes on Stonewall Lane. The boundary for 10 Stonewall Lane goes through
the center of the house and both properties were considered in the calculations. He is doing a
job at 6 Stonewall Lane. That house is in Mamaroneck and they included the Scarsdale
portion in their calculations. If they consider the Mamaroneck property in this application,
than they are only over in lot coverage by one percent. They also reduced the scope of work
for 100 sq. ft. of coverage. They are proposing to remove portions of the asphalt driveway
and paving in the rear of the property. The Chair noted there is a 906 sq. ft. area in the rear
that they will be replacing with grass. Mr. Luca said yes.
Ms. Underweiser said the municipal line varies. Mr. Luca said he is the architect for
6 Stonewall Lane and the front of that property is in Mamaroneck. In 8 and 10 Stonewall
Lane the boundary goes though the houses. 8 Stonewall Lane goes to Mamaroneck and 10
Stonewall Lane is in Scarsdale. Ms. Underweiser said this entire structure is located in
Scarsdale. Mr. Luca said yes but the setback requirement uses the Mamaroneck portion of
the property as well.
The Chair said there is an equitable consideration about using Mamaroneck. Mr.
Luca said the property should be considered as a whole as done in other townships.
Mr. Kay asked if any variances were previously granted to this property. Mr. Luca
said none that he could find on microfilm. All of the past projects must have been considered
using the entire property or a variance would have been required. Ms. Marrinan said the lot
coverage regulations did not come into play until 1985.
Mr. Kay asked if the asphalt in the rear next to the shed would be converted to grass.
Mr. Luca said 860 sq. ft. in the rear and 1,300 sq. ft. of the driveway will be removed to
reduce the existing non-conformity. Mr. Kay asked if they would be removing the driveway
and replacing it with gravel all the way to the front. Mr. Luca said if they are allowed to
consider the Mamaroneck portion of the property, then they do not need to remove it. Mr.
Kay asked why they should remove it; then they can request paving from Mamaroneck. Mr.
Luca said they would look ridiculous.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
149
Mr. Luca said they would put trench drains in because the garage is lower than the
street. Mr. Kay said asked about water detention structures back where the woods are. Mr.
Luca said they are needed to meet the requirements but will not be located back that far.
Mr. Kay said they are proposing a gravel driveway to meet lot coverage requirements.
However, one-half hour ago there was a case with problems with the gravel driveway. Mr.
Luca said the slope pitch is only ½ percent, not 11 percent.
Mr. Porosoff asked about the aesthetics. Mr. Luca said the owners want the house to
match the property with development, trees, tennis courts and pool.
Mr. Luca said he built the house at 7 Stonewall Lane and did renovations.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #32 OF 2008
6. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Marjorie and Phillip Jacobs for
a Special Use Permit to construct a swimming pool at 31 Griffen Avenue, identified on the
Village tax map as Sec. 24, Blk. 1, Lot 5B.
The Chair said the sixth application to be heard is that of Marjorie and Phillip Jacobs
and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify themselves.
Dr. Phillip Jacobs, applicant, and James Lotto, landscape architect, were present.
Mr. Lotto said the staff notes noted three issues. First, the southerly fence that they
were originally linking to the pool fence. They desire to keep all the fencing on their
property. Their new submittal of plans addressed the staff note issues. The Chair asked him
to show the differences. Mr. Lotto said Page 1 is the same. Page 2 is different and the
changes are marked in clouds. The fencing goes straight across. Also, they addressed the
picket spacing of 2 inches. These changes are shown and clouded. He said Page 3 is the
same. Page 4 addresses the plantings. They tried to use the existing plantings but needed to
add arborvitaes to keep the screening on the Jacob’s property.
Mr. Pietrosanti apologized for not getting comments in earlier. He said Drawing #3
shows grading at the southeast corner with a three on one slope and the property pitching
from the northwest to the southeast. They need to concentrate on the flow to the neighbors
with either a terrace effect, swales, Cul-Tecs, etc. Mr. Lotto said the next step is the SWEC
and that will be addressed at that point; with test holes, grading and drainage. Mr. Pietrosanti
said since last year that issue is more and more sensitive. Mr. Lotto said in essence, they are
reducing the existing steep grade by adding terracing, etc. Mr. Pietrosanti said the 86’
elevation to 84’ elevation needs to be worked out. Mr. Lotto agreed.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
150
Mr. Kay said a bunch of other things are in progress besides the gravel driveway,
portico, etc. Mr. Lotto said they have an application before the BAR for a circular driveway
and a portico in the front. The BAR has approved the circular driveway but not the portico so
far. He used the existing, more restrictive, coverage numbers. If he builds a driveway the
walk will be removed reducing the coverage.
Mr. Kay said if the pool is approved, would there be any lot coverage issues. Mr.
Lotto said no. The numbers used included the front and side walk. Dr. Jacobs said he had
asked the same question. Mr. Lotto said there is no question that the coverage calculations
including the pool would be less.
Mr. Kay said regarding the drainage calculations that the average time drop of 3
inches needs to be addressed. Mr. Lotto sad yes it will be addressed under the SWEC. Mr.
Kay said it would be approved with the SWEC request. Ms. Marrinan said a SWEC
requirement is a standard condition given more than a 500 sq. ft. disturbance.
Mr. Kay asked if this is approved but it turns out that the ground doesn’t perk, would
the neighbors get more water? Mr. Lotto said he called the Building Department and the
Engineering Department to submit the SWEC and was advised he needed to obtain the Board
of Appeals’ approval first. Mr. Kay said surface water issues are more important in the past
year with the land use boards. Mr. Lotto said these issues were always important.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #33 OF 2008
7. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Elizabeth and Jay Hausman for
a Special Use Permit to install a pool on the deck at 7 Thornwood Place, identified on the
Village tax map as Sec. 19, Blk. 1, Lot 194.
The Chair said the seventh application to be heard is that of Elizabeth and Jay
Hausman and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify
themselves.
Miguel Sostre, architect, was present.
Mr. Sostre said they are doing a small deck renovation for a hot tub. They will
provide screening, self latching gates, etc., to conform to the pool regulations.
The Chair said the area was not staked. He asked how the deck would vary in the
dimensions. Mr. Sostre said the contractor was supposed to stake it. The deck would be a
little wider. They are significantly under in lot coverage for the building and impervious
surfaces. The deck would be three feet deeper to the end of the main body of the house.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
151
Ms. Marrinan asked how many more square feet would be added to the deck. Mr.
Sostre said it would be 150 sq. ft. or 3 feet deeper by a 35 foot width of the main body of the
split level house.
The Chair said there is no survey or site plan of the existing conditions so it is hard to
see what differs. Is the three foot extension towards the rear property line? Mr. Sostre said
yes. Mr. Kay said it will be eight to ten feet longer than existing.
Mr. Sostre said the staff notes called for plantings and they will plant hollies or
cypress to screen the raised deck with the hot tub from the neighbors.
Mr. Kay asked if the air conditioning compressor under the deck would be removed.
Mr. Sostre said no, they are leaving it there.
Ms. Marrinan said she is concerned with the fencing proposed that is less than the
five feet required and less than three feet high from the top of the stairs. Mr. Sostre said if
the deck was on grade it would meet the code but to add five feet of fencing on the deck
would be intrusive. Mr. Pietrosanti said regulations under Scarsdale require a five foot high
fence; the State requirement is only four feet. The issue is that someone could go up the
stairs and climb over the fence which is a safety concern. Mr. Sostre asked how they could
satisfy the code without excessively barricading the small deck with the hot tub. Mr.
Pietrosanti said a Jacuzzi is to be treated as a pool under the State code. They would need a
State variance for a height below four feet and a Building and Board of Appeals variance for
a height five feet. Ms. Marrinan said a variance was not advertised so they would have to do
it at another time. Mr. Sostre asked if they comply with the four foot height, could they
move ahead. Mr. Pietrosanti said no there is still an issue and at the gate. Mr. Sostre said
Jacuzzis are treated as pools only in Scarsdale.
Mr. Sostre said they would proceed with a fence five feet high at the gate to be a
condition of the approval. If they need a variance they would apply independently. Ms.
Underweiser said they would need to meet the specifications. The Chair said an approval of
the Special Use Permit would be conditioned on a five foot fence height.
Mr. Pietrosanti said the doors to the deck would need to meet State Code
requirements prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Ms. Marrinan said they could consider fencing the perimeter or a portion of the lot.
The Chair said the application before us is for a five foot fence at the deck.
Mr. Porosoff asked about the energy issue. Ms. Marrinan said the Fire Inspector
asked if they would be using natural gas or propane. Mr. Sostre said they would use natural
gas.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
Mrs. Carol Silverman, 110 Spier Road, said she is the backdoor neighbor. She said
they cut a forest of trees when they moved in. She does not want to see the hot tub.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
152
She said she also represents Carolyn Beckish of 9 Thornwood Place who is in the
hospital. Mrs. Becker is concerned about where the water will drain to. Mr. Pietrosanti said
it would go to a slop sink or a sanitary sewer line. Most likely it would go into the house and
into a slop sink.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
CASE #34 OF 2008
8. The Chair declared the hearing open on the application of Susan and Jeffrey Goldenberg
for a variance from Chapter 310-47C to legalize a pool that, as constructed, intrudes on the
required setback for swimming pools at 12 Sherbrooke Road, identified on the Village tax
map as Sec. 13, Blk. 1, Lot 10.
The Chair said the eighth application to be heard is that of Susan and Jeffrey
Goldenberg and asked the applicants or their representatives to step forward and identify
themselves.
Sara Sullivan, contractor, was present.
Ms. Sullivan said they already constructed the pool in disregard of the setbacks. She
said Daniel Sherman the landscape architect had set forth the criteria regarding the accessory
structures with 20 foot setbacks not in line with the Scarsdale Code.
Ms. Marrinan said that was not per Chapter 310-47 of the Village Code requiring a 30
foot setback. It appears that the site plan in 2002 showed a 20 foot setback. There was a
mistake made and this intrusion was not picked up at the time of the Board of Appeals
review, during the Building Permit process nor during the SWEC Permit process. Mr.
Pietrosanti seconded that statement.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else who wished to be heard with respect to this
application, either in favor or in opposition.
No other persons desiring to be heard, the Chair declared the hearing closed.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
153
CASE #20 OF 2008
1.
Saba and Suhail Shaikh
70 Griffen Avenue
Section 24, Block 1, Lot 22
Variance to legalize a parking area in the front yard
The Board considered the application of Saba and Suhail Shaikh, Case #20 of 2008,
and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following resolution,
with Mr. Gardella recused:
WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information
submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the
construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools)
is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (10) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is listed in the
Assessor’s records as 23,304 sq. ft. and is improved with a house built in 1930;
and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-70 of the Village Code states that no open parking areas are
permitted in the front yard in the Residence A zoning districts; and
WHEREAS: At its June 14, 2006 meeting the Board of Appeals approved a variance to
permit parking in the front yard, on the condition the parking/turn around area
would be set back 70’ from the street as shown on plans dated March 16, 2006;
and
WHEREAS: The materials submitted with the application outline the changes that occurred
to the project subsequent to the approval of the variance and show the
applicant submitted plans dated September 11, 2006 with the parking area in a
different location (closer to the street) for a Building permit and a permit was
issued; and
WHEREAS: The plans filed for a Stormwater and Erosion Control permit, revised October
17, 2006 showed the driveway and turnaround in yet a third configuration and
that permit was also granted; and
WHEREAS: The applicant is seeking to legalize the driveway and turnaround in its final asbuilt condition; and
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
154
WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals considered the application at its April 9, 2008 meeting
and held the application over pending receipt and review of a survey with
dimensions; and
WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals considered the application again at its May 14, 2008
meeting and requested the applicant consider reducing the size of the
turnaround and installing additional landscaping; and
WHEREAS: The applicant submitted revised plans dated June 10, 2008 which show the
removal of a portion of the turnaround so that it will be set back 25’7” from the
street as opposed to the 16’8” as it was built and indicated his willingness to
install additional landscaping; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
and
WHEREAS: The Board members considered the criteria for granting area variances
pursuant to New York State Village Law Section 7-712 (b) and conducted the
appropriate balancing test as required therein; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Saba and Suhail Shaikh for a variance from Chapter 310-70
of the Village Code to legalize a parking area in the front yard at 70 Griffen
Avenue, as shown on plans revised June 10, 2008 be approved based on the
following findings and conditions:
1. Evergreen plantings at least 5’ high shall be planted in the area where
the turnaround is to be removed.
2. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood as the size of the turnaround area will be
reduced, set further back from the street than it is currently and will be
heavily landscaped.
3. The benefit sought by the applicant, namely to maintain a turnaround
area that, as constructed, allows cars to exit the property going forward
rather than backing out onto heavily trafficked Griffen Road, cannot be
achieved by another feasible method. The relocation of the turnaround
to the originally approved location would be costly and cause more
disturbance to the site. The Board finds the unique location of the
house, the existing topography and retaining walls all constrain the
location of a turnaround which is necessary to ensure safe vehicular
egress from the house.
4. The requested variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and will, in fact,
allow for a safer traffic condition.
5. While the Board recognizes that this hardship is self created, in that the
turnaround was not constructed in accordance with the plans submitted
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
155
for the original variance, the applicant has agreed to work with the
Board to mitigate the variance by removing a portion of the turnaround
and installing additional landscaping.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
156
CASE #22 OF 2008
2.
Deborah and Yoram Cohen
7 Dolma Road
Section 18, Block 1, Lot 13B
Variance in order to construct an addition that would exceed the maximum permitted
building coverage
The Board considered the application of Deborah and Yoram Cohen, Case #22 of
2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following
resolution:
WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information
submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the
proposed addition to a single family house as well as the request for a variance,
is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (9, 12) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-1 (1 acre) zoning district and is listed in the
Assessor’s records as 1.0 acres and on the lot coverage form as 45,651 sq. ft.;
and
WHEREAS: The house was built in 1955, with additions and alterations made since then,
and a swimming pool was constructed in 1990; and
WHEREAS: In 1995, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied a building coverage variance
requested by a prior owner due to the size of the variance which was for 837
sq. ft. or 17%; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code regulates building coverage based on lot
area; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a garage addition adding a bay to
accommodate three cars; and
WHEREAS: The proposed addition is shown as 295 sq. ft. on the application form and the
lot coverage calculations, based on 45,651 sq. ft., show that the building
footprint would be 4,828 sq. ft. where 4,726 sq. ft is permitted for a requested
variance of 102 sq. ft. or 2%; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
and
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
157
WHEREAS: The Board members considered the criteria for granting area variances
pursuant to New York State Village Law Section 7-712 (b) and conducted the
appropriate balancing test as required therein; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Deborah and Yoram Cohen for a variance from Chapter
310-22 of the Village Code in order to construct an addition that would exceed
the maximum permitted building coverage at 7 Dolma Road, as shown on
Plans revised May 7, 2008 be approved based on the following findings and
conditions:
1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood as it will be set back in excess of 50’
from the front property line. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated
that there are several other homes in the neighborhood with three car
garages.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant, namely the construction of a third
bay for a three car garage, cannot be achieved by another feasible
method given the existing footprint of the house and the location of the
existing garage.
3. The requested variance for 112 sq. ft. or 2% is de minimus.
4. The requested variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. The Stormwater and Erosion Control and Building permits should be
amended to show the approved change.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
158
CASE #25 OF 2008
3.
Merle and Stephen Denelsky
131 Cushman Road
Section 16, Block 4, Lot 10
Variance in order to pave a gravel driveway which would exceed the maximum
permitted lot coverage on this wetlands controlled lot
The Board considered the application of Merle and Stephen Denelsky, Case #25 of
2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, held the application over to a future
meeting pending receipt and review of the following:
1. Revised plans which further reduce the variance request. Consideration
might be given to introducing additional drainage facilities and/or
relocating existing facilities.
2. The plans should also address the Village Engineer’s suggestion that
the driveway apron be paved from the street to the property line.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
159
CASE #26 OF 2008
4.
Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd.
60 Crane Road
Section 3, Block 1, Lot 2C
Appeal the determination of the Building Inspector and an interpretation of Chapters
310-14, 310-20 through 23 of the Village Code regarding the calculation of lot area
coverage for the construction of a new house on a new lot adjacent to 60 Crane Road
The Board considered the application of Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd., Case #26 of
2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following
resolution:
WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information
submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the
interpretation of the Village Code, is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR
617.5(c) (31) and therefore is not subject to further environmental
consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-3(10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district and is a result
of a two lot subdivision approved by the Planning Board in January 2007
which created one lot improved with the historic Crawford Morris House at 60
Crane Road and a second lot for one new house behind it; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-14 of the Village Code regulates the Area of Lots; and
WHEREAS: Chapters 310-20 – 23 of the Village Code regulate building and lot area
coverage; and
WHEREAS: The application materials include a Statement of Support which notes the issue
is the Village Building Inspector’s interpretation that the method to calculate
required lot area as outlined in Chapter 310-14B is the basis for calculating
building and lot coverage as required in Chapters 310-20 through 23 of the
Village Code; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-14B states “…no part of a lot shall be included in calculating the
required lot area except such part as falls within either an inscribed
quadrilateral, no part of which has less that 1/3 of the minimum required lot
width, or an inscribed circle…”; and
WHEREAS: When reviewing Chapter 310-20 through 22 and, in particular, the tables
provided, reference is made to Lot Area which is not defined in that Chapter,
although lot area coverage is a defined term, and the only other definition of lot
area is the above referenced description in 310-14B; and
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
160
WHEREAS: In practice, the Village has interpreted the code to base building and lot
coverage on the area falling within the quadrilateral and excluded both the lot
area and the impervious surfaces which fall outside the quadrilateral from the
calculations; and
WHEREAS: In this case, the subdivision was carefully scrutinized by the Planning Board
and other concerned parties and throughout the four month subdivision review
process and the submitted calculations for both building and lot area coverage
were based on the area of the quadrilateral; and
WHEREAS: The filed subdivision plat includes a zoning table which details the required
and proposed lot coverage based on the area within the quadrilateral; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The Board declined to review the application of Sixty Crane Holdings, Ltd. to
appeal the determination of the Building Inspector and an interpretation of
Chapters 310-14 and 310-20 through 23 of the Village Code regarding the
calculation of lot area coverage for the construction of a new house on a new
lot adjacent to 60 Crane Road, as the issue was not addressed by the applicant
in a timely fashion during the subdivision review process; and be it further
RESOLVED: The applicant has the option of seeking a variance; and be it further
RESOLVED: The Board respectfully recommends that the Village Board of Trustees
consider amending the code to clarify the matter of whether gross lot area or
the lot area within a quadrilateral is the basis of calculating building and lot
coverage.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
161
CASE #27 OF 2008
5.
Angela and Yong Kim
30 Stonewall Lane
Section 21, Block 1, Lot 35
Variances to construct an addition that would exceed maximum permitted lot coverage
The Board considered the application of Angela and Yong Kim, Case #27 of 2008,
and, upon motion duly made and seconded, Mr. Kay, Mr. Porosoff and Mr. Ross in favor, Ms.
Underweiser abstaining, adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information
submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the
proposed addition to a single family house as well as the request for a variance,
is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (9, 12) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district and is listed in
the Assessor’s records as .36 acres; and
WHEREAS: The municipal boundary between Scarsdale and the Town of Mamaroneck
runs across the front of the house, with the front yard in the Town of
Mamaroneck; and
WHEREAS: The house was built in 1956 and the pool and tennis court built in the 1981 and
1983 respectively; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-22 of the Village Code regulates lot coverage based on lot area
and was adopted in 1985 after the tennis court and swimming pool were built;
and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of several additions and includes the
removal of some impervious surface which, while reducing the existing lot
coverage nonconformity, will exceed the maximum permitted lot coverage;
and
WHEREAS: Based on the lot area within the Village of Scarsdale the lot coverage form
indicates the proposed lot coverage is 13,405 sq. ft where 11,778 sq. ft. is
permitted for a requested variance of 1,627 sq. ft. or 13.8%; and
WHEREAS: Based on the lot area within the Village of Scarsdale and the Town of
Mamaroneck, the proposed lot coverage is 13,405 sq. ft. where 13,252 sq. ft. is
permitted for a variance of 1%; and
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
162
WHEREAS: The Board considered the application at its May 14, 2008 meeting and held the
application over pending review and receipt of additional information which
the applicant provided; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
and
WHEREAS: The Board members considered the criteria for granting area variances
pursuant to New York State Village Law Section 7-712 (b) and conducted the
appropriate balancing test as required therein; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Angela and Yong Kim for variances from Chapters 310-22
and 310-67 of the Village Code to construct an addition that would exceed
maximum permitted lot coverage at 30 Stonewall Lane, as shown on plans
revised May 15, 2008 be approved based on the following findings:
1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood as the proposed project will reduce the
existing nonconformity.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant, namely the modernization of the
1950’s house, cannot be achieved by another feasible method due to the
property’s location straddling a municipal boundary and the legal preexisting lot coverage non-conformity created with the construction of
the tennis court and swimming pool.
3. The requested variance is de minimus if the lot area in the Town of
Mamaroneck is included, and reasonable, considering the significant
decrease in the existing nonconformity, if based only on the property in
the Village.
4. The requested variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as it will decrease
impervious surfaces and introduce a storm water management system
to the site.
5. The variance is conditioned on the removal of the asphalt driveway and
its replacement with gravel with the exception of the portion of the
driveway apron in the right of way.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
163
CASE #32 OF 2008
6. Marjorie and Phillip Jacobs
31 Griffen Avenue
Section 24, Block 1, Lot 5B
Special Use Permit to construct a Pool
The Board considered the application of Marjorie and Phillip Jacobs, Case #32 of
2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following
resolution:
WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information
submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the
construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools)
is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (10) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-2 (20,000 sq. ft.) zoning district and is listed in
the Assessor’s records as .57 acres and 25,256 sq. ft. and is improved with a
house built in 1941 with additions and alterations made since then; and
WHEREAS:
A swimming pool was constructed in 1978 and then demolished in 1988; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code gives the Board of Appeals the authority
to grant special use permits for swimming pools; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a swimming pool, patio and
associated landscaping and fencing and the pool location appears to meet the
Board’s setback requirements; and
WHEREAS: The plans were revised to show the required evergreen screening and fencing
on the applicant’s property; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Marjorie and Phillip Jacobs for a Special Use Permit to
construct a pool at 31 Griffen Avenue, as shown on Plans 1-4 revised June 6,
2008, be approved conditioned on the following:
1. A Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Permit will be
required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
2. There shall be installed and maintained on the lot upon which the pool
is located, and completely enclosing the pool, a fence or wall not less
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
164
than 5 feet in height, with all gates and doors equipped with selfclosing and self-latching devices designed to keep and capable of
keeping such gates and doors securely closed at all times when not in
actual use.
3. Evergreen screening, at a minimum of 5 feet in height, and spaced so
as to completely screen the pool from the view of all persons
occupying adjoining properties and from the street, subject to the
approval of the Building Inspector, shall be installed and maintained
on the applicant's property as long as said pool is in existence.
4. The fence shall be constructed as shown on the plans presented to the
Board.
5. A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained
above ground, and said filter (and heater, if any) shall be enclosed with
a fence 5' feet in height with a self-closing and self-latching gate and
landscaped screening.
6. Lighting of the pool and adjacent premises shall be limited to
underwater lighting.
7. Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the
Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures
must be taken to insure that water containing chemicals, such as acids
or detergents resulting from lowering the water level of the pool or
from pool cleaning, will be pumped directly into the sanitary sewer
system, and not drained onto any land or into any stream or storm
drain.
8. The use of the swimming pool shall be limited to the occupants of the
principal building and their guests.
9. Any necessary removal of rock shall be by methods other than
blasting.
10. Methods and plans for tree conservation and preservation shall be
submitted as a part of the application for a Storm Water Management
and Erosion Control permit. The soil erosion control and tree
protection measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit.
11. The applicant shall submit an "as built" survey and certified lot
coverage form to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, showing the final location of the pool and
fencing and the as-built lot coverage.
12. The swimming pool shall be completed within 18 months and shall not
be used prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
165
13. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the applicant
complies with all conditions set down by the Board.
14. Failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within a period of 18
months from the date of this resolution shall cause said resolution to
become null and void.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
166
CASE #33 OF 2008
7. Elizabeth and Jay Hausman
7 Thornwood Place
Section 19, Block 1, Lot 194
Special Use Permit to install a hot tub on the deck
The Board considered the application of Elizabeth and Jay Hausman, Case #33 of
2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following
resolution:
WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information
submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the
construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools)
is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (10) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the A-3 (10,000 sq. ft.) zoning district, is listed in
the Assessor’s records as .45 acres and 19,936 sq. ft. and is improved with a
house built in 1963 with additions and alterations made since then; and
WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals denied a variance that would have created two building
lots in 1962; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code gives the Board of Appeals the authority
to grant special use permits for swimming pools; and
WHEREAS: The plans show the proposed construction of a new two level deck with a hot
tub located on the lower level; and
WHEREAS: Hot tubs and Jacuzzis must comply with swimming pool requirements
including a special use permit from the Board of Appeals, given the health and
safety issues and the potential impact on neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Elizabeth and Jay Hausman for a Special Use Permit to
install a hot tub on the deck at 7 Thornwood Place, as shown on plans A-1.1
and A-1.2 be approved conditioned on the following:
1. A Storm Water Management and Erosion Control Permit will be
required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
167
2. There shall be installed and maintained on the lot upon which the hot
tub is located, and completely enclosing the hot tub, a fence or wall
not less than 5 feet in height, with all gates and doors equipped with
self-closing and self-latching devices designed to keep and capable of
keeping such gates and doors securely closed at all times when not in
actual use. This fence, if installed on the deck shall be 5’ high
measured from the deck surface. In addition, all windows and doors
leading from the house to the hot tub shall be self-closing and selflatching.
3. Evergreen screening, at a minimum of 5 feet in height, and spaced so
as to completely screen the hot tub from the view of all persons
occupying adjoining properties and from the street, subject to the
approval of the Building Inspector, shall be installed and maintained
on the applicant's property as long as said hot tub is in existence.
4. A 24-hour filter circulating system shall be installed and maintained
above ground, and said filter (and heater, if any) shall be enclosed with
a fence 5' feet in height with a self-closing and self-latching gate and
landscaped screening.
5. Drainage and sanitary facilities, conforming to the requirements of the
Scarsdale Village Code, shall be installed and maintained. Measures
must be taken to insure that water containing chemicals, such as acids
or detergents resulting from lowering the water level of the hot tub or
from hot tub cleaning, will be pumped directly into the sanitary sewer
system, and not drained onto any land or into any stream or storm
drain.
6. The use of the hot tub shall be limited to the occupants of the principal
building and their guests.
7. Any necessary removal of rock shall be by methods other than
blasting.
8. Methods and plans for tree conservation and preservation shall be
submitted as a part of the application for a Storm Water Management
and Erosion Control permit. The soil erosion control and tree
protection measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit.
9. The applicant shall submit an "as built" survey and certified lot
coverage form to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy, showing the final location of the deck, hot
tub and fencing and the as-built lot coverage.
10. The hot tub shall be completed within 18 months and shall not be used
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
168
11. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the applicant
complies with all conditions set down by the Board.
12. Failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within a period of 18
months from the date of this resolution shall cause said resolution to
become null and void.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
169
CASE #34 OF 2008
8. Susan and Jeffrey Goldenberg
12 Sherbrooke Road
Section 13, Block 1, Lot 10
Variance to legalize a pool that, as constructed, intrudes on the required setback for
swimming pools
The Board considered the application of Susan and Jeffrey Goldenberg, Case #34 of
2008, and, upon motion duly made and seconded, unanimously adopted the following
resolution:
WHEREAS: The Board has considered the subject application pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 152 of the Village Code; now
therefore be it
RESOLVED: That after careful examination of the site and evaluation of the information
submitted with the application, the Board determined that such application, the
construction of minor accessory structures (such as driveways, fences or pools)
is a Type II action pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5(c) (10) and therefore not
subject to further environmental consideration under said regulations; and
WHEREAS: The property is located in the AA-2 (2 acre) zoning district and is listed in the
Assessor’s records as 2.03 acres and the house was recently constructed; and
WHEREAS: The Board of Appeals granted a variance for building coverage for the house
and approved a Special Use Permit for the Swimming Pool in 2002; and
WHEREAS:
Subsequently, in 2003, the Board approved an amendment to the Special use
permit with a revised pool and pool house location and a revised landscaping
plan; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-88 of the Village Code gives the Board of Appeals the authority
to grant special use permits for swimming pools, but shall be at least the
distances specified in 310-47C; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 310-47C of the Village Code states that swimming pools must be set
back 30’ from the property line; and
WHEREAS: The original approved Special use permit showed the pool was to be
constructed well beyond the required 30’ setback, however the amendment was
to “relocate the pool by 10’ ” and showed the required setback as 20’ and the
pool to be constructed 24’ from the property line; and
WHEREAS: This intrusion was not picked up at the time of the Board of Appeals review,
nor prior to the issuance of a building permit; and
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
WHEREAS:
170
The pool was constructed in general accordance with those plans and an asbuilt survey, required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
shows the pool set back 24.0’ and 24.2’; and
WHEREAS: The applicant is now seeking a variance of 6’ or 20% to legalize this situation;
and
WHEREAS: The Board members have visited the site and are familiar with the application;
and
WHEREAS: The Board members considered the criteria for granting area variances
pursuant to New York State Village Law Section 7-712 (b) and conducted the
appropriate balancing test as required therein; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: The application of Susan and Jeffrey Goldenberg for a variance from Chapter
310-47C to legalize a pool that, as constructed, intrudes on the required
setback for swimming pools at 12 Sherbrooke Road, as shown on a Survey
revised September 8, 2007 be approved based on the following findings:
1. The requested variance will not create an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood, as it is already constructed, is
appropriately screened and fenced and the setback appears adequate
under these unique circumstances. Further, there was no comment
made by any of the affected neighbors.
2. The benefit sought, namely to maintain the pool in a non conforming
location, cannot be achieved by another feasible method other than a
variance due to the unique manner in which the situation arose.
3. The requested variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, as adequate storm
water drainage has been provided as has the required landscaping.
******
Board of Appeals – 06/11/08
171
The Chair announced that the next meeting of the Board of Appeals would be held on
Wednesday, July 23, 2008, at 8 p.m.
******
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
******
Janet Annacone
Secretary to the Board